MFA/552/1989 of ORENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs APPUKKUTTAN on 9 April 1997

JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan, J.

We have perused the order passed by the apex court in Civil AppealNos. 5202-5203 of 2005 directing this court to examine the acceptability of the rival stands and to give a definite finding as to the actual extent of landwhich had vested in the State as per the provisions of the Kerala PrivateForest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.

2. This court while disposing of M.F.A. No 552 of 1990 videjudgment dated 31.03.2003 had elaborately considered the facts of the case,hence needs no further elaboration. Question raised before this court aswell as before the Forest Tribunal was with regard to the extent of landliable to be exempted from the land vested in the State by virtue of theVesting Act. This court ultimately held that the applicant is entitled to getexemption from vesting only plot Nos. 4 and 5 for its ancilliary purposes asshown in Annexure R1 (a) report by the Range Officer. Plot No 4 ishaving an extent of 3.6500 hectares and plot No.5 is having an extent of

0.6200 hectares. Annexure R1(a) report submitted by the Forest RangeOfficer, Meppadi indicated that so far as plot No. 4 is concerned,majorportion falls within the estate and the entire area in plot No 5 also fallswithin the estate. Under such circumstances, this court disposed of theM.F.A declaring that plot Nos 4 and 5 in Annexure R1(a) report beexempted out of the lands vested in the State.

3. State and the Custodian of Vested Forests had taken up the standthat the above mentioned area also would fall within the area which hadvested in the State on coming into force of the Kerala Private Forest(Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 24 of 1971) and were not liable tobe exempted. Further State also had taken up the stand that even withregard to lands covered by plot Nos 4 and 5, applicant had no title since thesame was vested in the State on 10.05.1971 and the applicant had come intopicture only on 08.02.1973 when they had acquired right of the developedarea of 607.6361 hectares by Ext P2 document. State maintained the standthat the applicant could lay claim only in respect of the above mentionedarea covered by Ext P2 and the property for which they raised claim hadvested in the State as early as on 10.05.1971, the date on which it wasstatutorily vested. Apex court felt that the real controversy is with regardto the extent of land vested in the State; whether it was 211.1628 hectares of land as claimed by the applicant or 246.8235 hectares of land as stated bythe State and therefore it was ordered that a definite finding be reachedwith regard to the actual extent of land vested in the State. Reference wasalso made to 419.6351 hectares of land mentioned in this court's judgment.

4. Applicant in O.A. No 98 of 1990 stated that the property whichhad vested in the State was 419.6350 hectare. Paragraph 2 of theapplication reads as follows:

“2. For administrative convenience these estates are dividedinto 3 divisions, called Ripon Division, Nellimunda Division andAudatode Division. The total extent of these 3 divisions is1027.2711 hectares. The predecessor company had filed the requiredreturns to the Land Board under KLR Act 1963 as amended by Act of1972. This return was submitted to the Land Board on 11[th] December1972. An area of 419.6350 hectares was declared as private forest inthat petition. The above area is mostly comprised of sparse shrubsand grass land. Some areas are also available with good stand ofjungle trees, low lying swamps and rivulets in between.”

In paragraph 3 of the application it is stated as follows:

“The three divisions of the estate including the above declaredforest area comprises of 1027.2711 hectares (in this 419.6350hectares declared as forest is interspersed and contiguous to the

607.6361 hectares of planted area). Our developed area of 607.6361hectares covers 451.3596 hectares of planted area .......”

Contention was raised by the applicant that 419.6350 hectares of land wasundeveloped area as on 10.05.1971. The Tribunal elaborately consideredthe various contentions raised by the petitioner in its order dated11.05.1990 which was affirmed by this court in M.F.A. No 552 of 1990with slight modification. We have indicated that the applicant haspurchased the property after the property was vested in the State.

5. We find that the total extent of land statutorily vested as privateforest in the State was 246.8235 hectares and not 211.1628 hectare.Tribunal had also recorded a finding that what was vested was 246,8235hectares and we also endorse that finding with regard to the extent ofland vested. Since the right, title and interest of the land in question hadfully vested in the State, it has attained the character of a reserve forest.Further it may be pointed out that the predecessor in interest of theapplicant company had submitted ceiling return before the Land Board on11.12.1972 stating that 419.6350 hectares was private forest (which takes in 246.8235 hectares) and the area was full of wild growth and jungle treesand neither the predecessor in interest nor the applicant company could claim any right on those land whether it is 211.164 or 246.8235 hectares or419.6350 hectares f land. On facts we have found only plot Nos 4 and5 could be exempted out of 246.8635 hectares vested in the State. M.F Ais disposed of above as directed by the apex court, upholding this courtjudgment. R.P. Filed by the State would stand dismissed.

Sd/-K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge

19/10/2007en

Sd/-A.K. BASHEER Judge

[true copy]